I agree that many explorers would be using contract staff and consultants (Geo's, Lawyers, Environmental agencies, water tech, engineers etc, however it seems when reading into his sentiment, I took that the whole of PGM was contract staff, etc, and I do not at all agree that an ASX listed company should just be run on contractors especially on the back of shareholders money. I would like to see the full-time vs contractor split as a ratio.
I run and manage a couple of businesses (Mining and tech), I agree contractors are good for OPEX, however from my experience, do not share a company vision and goals like full time staff do. Motivation, depending on condition of course is no where near as high because contractors in my experience do not feel 100% part of the business. Also if you take it back to Maslows hierarchy of needs (Motivational theory) generally a contractors physiological and safety needs are only being met ..
When running an exploratory mining company you want go getters, you want a team that believes in the ground and is always intrigued with it and looking to create efficiencies where they can, ready to challenge the status quo and ask the harder questions to management and help management come up with the correct solutions. Mining is not cheap, the exploratory side can get very expensive very quickly so you need to be as efficient as you can, if your are going to fail then fail quickly!
If you think that the contractors have been a good investment then just have a look at the PGM share price. I would like to see the full-time vs contractor ratios at CLQ and AUZ given their progress. I bet my bottom dollar, that if PGM had full time staffers, then our share price would be a lot higher than it is now. Why because PGM's marketing and commercialisation strategies would be much more focused, better set out and more regularly looked at.
This is all my opinion of course, how many ways can you skin a cat?
Expand
